Court No. - 2
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 526 of 2014 Applicant :- Vishwa Nath Lal Opposite Party :- Sunil Dutt Dios And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Singh,Ramesh Rai,Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C.,Kushmondeya Shahi
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
1. An application duly supported by affidavit seeking discharge of the contemner from the charge and letting off without punishment filed today, is taken on record.
2. This Court vide order dated 21 January 2019 had held the contemner guilty of contempt of court and the charge against him stood proved.
3. Heard Sri M.D. Singh 'Shekhar', learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mukhtar Alam, learned counsel for the contemner on the quantum of sentence.
4. In the affidavit it is stated that the contemner on being selected in the Provincial Civil Service was appointed Class-II officer on 1 September 2010 as Assistant Deputy Director, Patrachar at Allahabad, thereafter, contemner was transferred as In-charge District Inspector of Schools, Mau on 4 August 2012. It is admitted that the order of the writ Court dated 17 January 2013 was served upon the contemner, thereafter, contemner passed order dated 10 March 2014 flouting the writ Court order. It is urged that the contemner being a new officer did not understand the purport and import of the writ Court order and inadvertently passed the order dated 10 March 2014 flouting the order of the writ Court. The explanation furnished in the affidavit reads thus:
“14. That the deponent is a class IInd Officer and very first time was giving the charge as an Incharge District Inspector of Schools, Mau. The deponent is too junior in service absolutely there was no willful disobedience of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 17.01.2013. Civil Contempt as define under Section 2b of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of the Court. The essential ingredient is willful disobedience and not any and every disobedience. Willful connotes purposefulness and clear intention to flout the order of the Court. Absolutely there is nothing on record that the deponent within the clear intention flout order of the Hon'ble Court. The opposite party no. 1 has already explained the entire facts and circumstances in the preceding paragraphs of the affidavit as such considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to discharge the opposite party no. 1 and letting off without punishment or to pass such other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise the opposite party no. 1 shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury.
15. That the deponent is a responsible Government Officer and he could not correctly understand the import of the order dated 17.1.2013 passed in Writ-A No. 20870 of 1995 in the absence of relevant document as such a mistake occurred in deciding the representation of the petitioner. The deponent cannot even dream to overreach Hon'ble Court.
The deponent tendered his unconditional and unqualified apology and begs to be pardon by this Hon'ble Court.”
5. On specific query, learned Senior Counsel is unable to explain, as to how, the contemner did not understand the import of the writ Court order, whereas, on the contrary the contemner after understanding the import of the writ Court order passed the order dated 10 March 2014 which clearly reflects that after understanding the import of the order he passed an order flouting the order of the writ Court. Pursuant to the order passed by the contemner the computation of pension and other retiral benefits was not computed from 1977 as directed by the writ Court but from 1994.
6. Operative portion of the order dated 10 March 2014 passed by the contemner reads thus:
i=koyh eas “leh{kk miyC/k vfHkys[kksa ds ifj'khyu ls ;g rF; Hkyh Hkkafr Li"V gS fd ;kph }kjk iwoZ esa viuh fu;qfDr laLFkk esa o"kZ 1977 ls fn[kkrs gq;s ekuuh; mPPk U;k;ky; bykgkckn esa ;ksftr ;kfpdk la[;k 4496@ 1978 ;ksftr dh x;h ftleas ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk fnukda 27-09-1991 dks ikfjr vkns'k ds dze esa rRdkyhu ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd eÅ us vius vkns'k fnukad 22-10-1994 }kjk izdj.k dk fuLrkj.k djrs gq, ;kph dks mijksDr fo|ky; eas Lukrd esa lgk;d v/;kid ekurs gq, mls ekg vDVwcj 1994 ls osru Hkqxrku dh Lohd`fr dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;kA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; eas Hkh ;kfpdk l[a ;k 20870@ 1995 esa fnukad 17-01-2013 dks vkns'k ikfjr djrs gq, ;kph }kjk tqykbZ 1977 ls flrEcj 1994 rd ds vU; Hkqxrku ds nkos lEcfU/kr izkFkZuk i= fujLr dj fn;kA mDr ds vkyksd eas ;g ifjyf{kr gkrks gS fd ;kph Jh fo'oukFk dh fu;qfDr dh foRrh;
lgefr rRdkyhu ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd] eÅ ds vkns'k fnukad 27-10-1994 }kjk iznku dh x;h gS u fd tqykbZ 1977 ls nh x;h gSA bl izdkj ;kph }kjk o"kZ 2009 esa gq;h mldh lsok fuo`Rr ds i'pkr leLr ifj.kkeh ykHk fnukad 21-07-1977 ls o"kZ 2009 dh vof/k dh ekax djuk mfpr izrhr ugh gksrk gSA fu.kZ;
mijksDr ds vkyksd eas ;kph }kjk o"kZ 2009 eas gq;h mldh lsok fuo`fRr ds i'pkr fnukad 21-07-1977 ls o"kZ 2009 dh vof/k rd dh leLr ifj.kkeh ykHk ¼ias'ku@ vo'ks"k bR;kfn½ dh ekax fujk/kkj ,oa cyghu gksus ds dkj.k Jh ;kph Jh fo'oukFk yky }kjk izkIr djk;s x;s izR;kosnu fnukad 16-06-2013 vLohdkj djrs gq, fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA g0v0 ¼lquhy nRr½ ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd]eÅ”
7. The contemner has shown no remorse or regret for his conduct, rather has justified the passing of the order flouting the writ Court order. The writ Court order had attained finality. The operative portion of the order extracted hereinabove clearly shows that after understanding the purport and import of the writ Court order, the contemner passed the order by not only flouting the writ Court order but has tried to overreach the Constitutional Court.
8. In this case, the apology tendered by the opposite party-contemner was not a product of remorse or contrition and therefore, does not merit acceptance. An apology merely to protect against rigours of law is no apology. Apology cannot be used as a weapon of defence to get purged of the guilt, which precisely the contemner has sought to do as he desires to avoid worldly suffering which would follow if sentenced. A sentence of fine would not be conducive to the larger cause of maintenance of purity in the portals of court inasmuch a member of civil service takes law in his own hands and becomes law unto himself by expressly flouting the order of a Constitutional Court which would shake the very foundation of judicial majesty, people would loose faith in the judicial process.
9. There cannot be both justification and an apology. The two things are incompatible. Again an apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of offence; nor is it intended to operate as a universal panacea, but it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness.
10. In view of the discussion, findings and conclusion recorded, the contemner Sri Sunil Dutt, S/o Sri Anant Lal, the then District Inspector of Schools, Mau, presently posted as Deputy Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Mukhya Karyalaya, Prayagraj (Allahabad) is imposed pusnishment of simple imprisonment of three months besides fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The contemner is directed to deposit the fine within one month from today. In the event of failure to deposit the fine within time, it shall be recovered from his salary in accordance with law. The punishment of simple imprisonment shall be served by the contemner and he shall surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad within one month from today.
11. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the contemner within three days from today. Registrar General to communicate this order to the C.J.M., Allahabad forthwith for compliance, who shall send compliance report to the Registrar General of this Court within one month.
12. Contempt petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.1.2019 S.Prakash
Court No. - 2
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 526 of 2014 Applicant :- Vishwa Nath Lal Opposite Party :- Sunil Dutt Dios And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Singh,Ramesh Rai,Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C.,Kushmondeya Shahi
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
1. After delivery of judgment in this case, contemner prays that sentence imposed by this Court vide judgment of date be suspended to enable him to avail statutory remedy of appeal under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
2. In the circumstances, sentence is suspended for a period of one month. In case, the appeal is not filed or if filed but no order otherwise is passed in the appeal, contemner shall surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad after one month i.e. on or after 1 March 2019, but not beyond 8 March 2019, who shall take steps to get the sentence served out by the contemnor.
Order Date :- 30.1.2019 S.Prakash